Difference between revisions of "Intellectual Property Office (2015c)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{MainSource
 
{{MainSource
 
|Source={{Source
 
|Source={{Source
|Name of Study=Intellectual Property Office (2015)
+
|Name of Study=Intellectual Property Office (2015c)
 
|Author=Intellectual Property Office;
 
|Author=Intellectual Property Office;
 
|Title=Intellectual Property Awareness Survey
 
|Title=Intellectual Property Awareness Survey

Latest revision as of 20:39, 2 March 2017

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Intellectual Property Office (2015c)
Title: Intellectual Property Awareness Survey
Author(s): Intellectual Property Office
Year: 2015
Citation: Intellectual Property Office, Intellectual Property Awareness Study (2015)
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: An IP knowledge section which tested the respondent's familiarity with IP, a management section which sought to discover how firms were administering IP within their organisation and a final section which focussed on where IP information and advice was sourced from. The questions were formulated with input from IPO policy colleagues specialising in the various rights areas.

The results from each question are presented, broken down by business size and type if appropriate. Analysis based on the respondent’s answers to combinations of questions is shown to gain further insight into specific questions, as directed by policy colleagues within the IPO.

Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: Yes
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2015
Funder(s):
  • Intellectual Property Office

Abstract

This report presents the findings from the third UK IP Awareness Survey completed in February - March 2015. The aim of the survey is to give an indication of the state of IP awareness in the UK across all sizes of firm and all sectors of industry. The level of awareness will help us to target business outreach across the UK. The 2015 IP Awareness Survey is an independent survey and isn’t comparable against previous IP Awareness Surveys.

Main Results of the Study

  • 94% of respondents thought that it was important for businesses to understand how to protect their IP.
  • 52% of responding firms had protected some sort of IP (either through a single right or a combination).
  • 65% of respondents thought that confidentiality agreements are important to protecting their IP. This method of protection was the most popular.
  • The majority of surveyed firms have not been involved in a dispute around IP, over 75%.
  • 96% of firms have not valued their IP.
  • 79% of firms did not know that telling people about an invention before applying for a patent could lead to an unsuccessful application.
  • 60%of firms knew that a piece of work can be protected by copyright without it being registered with the government.
  • 28% of firms check they are not infringing other people’s IP, the most popular IP management activity amongst respondents.
  • 20% of firms indicated that they license their IP, allowing others to use it for a fee.
  • Less than 10% of firms provide staff training on IP.


Policy Implications as Stated By Author


Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Green-tick.png
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)
Green-tick.png

Datasets

Sample size: 502
Level of aggregation: Company
Period of material under study: 2015